transforming spatial reasoning skills in the upper-level … · the upper-level undergraduate...

Transforming Spatial Reasoning Skills in the Upper-Level Undergraduate Geoscience Classroom Through Curricular Materials Informed by

Cognitive Science Research

Carol Ormand, SERC, Carleton College & Geoscience, UW-Madison

Thomas F. Shipley, Psychology, Temple University

Barbara Dutrow, Geology & Geophysics, Louisiana State University

Laurel Goodwin, Geoscience, UW-Madison

Thomas A. Hickson, Geology, University of St. Thomas

Basil Tikoff, Geoscience, UW-Madison

Kinnari Atit, Kristin Gagnier, & Ilyse Resnick, Psychology, Temple University

Outline

•  The problem

•  Our solution

•  Insights from cognitive science research

•  Curricular implementation in upper-division geology courses

•  Research questions and study design: evaluating our curricular materials

•  Data

•  Conclusions

The Problem

“Spatial thinking is pervasive: it is vital across a wide range of domains of practical and scientific knowledge; yet it is under-recognized, undervalued, underappreciated, and therefore under-instructed.”

Learning to Think Spatially, National Research Council, 2006

“Spatial thinking – you can’t leave home without it.” The People’s Guide to Spatial Thinking, Sinton et al., 2013

The Problem

Distribution of Vandenberg & Kuse (1978) Mental Rotation pre-test scores for students in Mineralogy, Structural Geology, and Sedimentology/Stratigraphy courses.

The Problem

Scores on the Geologic Block Cross-sectioning Test vs. the Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotation Test (N=142). Although R=0.40, indicating a statistically significant correlation of these two skills, some students who excel at

visualizing a cross-section through a geologic block diagram have weak mental rotation skills.

Context

•  Spatial visualization is a key skill for understanding and solving many geological problems

•  Undergraduate geoscience students, including students in upper-level courses, bring a wide range of spatial skills to the classroom

•  Spatial skills are malleable (e.g., Sorby, 2009; Uttal et al., 2013)

•  SILC (the Spatial Intelligence & Learning Center) studies the development of spatial thinking skills and is particularly interested in spatial thinking in the geosciences

Our solution: curricular materials informed by cognitive science research (the Spatial Workbook)

•  Premise: Use strategies/tools from cognitive science research (e.g. Gentner and Markman, 1994; Goldin-Meadow, 2011) to develop curricular materials that will boost students’ spatial skills •  3D sketching and prediction •  Gesture •  Analogical reasoning •  Progressive alignment*

* Progressive alignment is the process of moving from the comparison of very similar to less similar objects, in order to identify salient differences.

Our Research Questions

•  Can curricular materials informed by cognitive science research boost students’ domain-general spatial thinking skills (their ability to perform abstract spatial tasks)?

•  Can these materials boost students’ domain-specific spatial thinking skills (their ability to reason about spatially complex geological concepts and problems)?

•  Will these gains be greater than the improvement we typically see over the course of a semester?

Our solution: curricular materials informed by cognitive science research (the Spatial Workbook)

Strategies/tools from cognitive science research:

3D sketching and prediction Gesture Analogical reasoning Progressive alignment

Upper-level geoscience courses:

Mineralogy Structural Geology Sedimentology & Stratigraphy

X

Our solution: curricular materials informed by cognitive science research (the Spatial Workbook)

Examples from the Workbook

•  3D cleavage patterns around folds: •  Sketch bedding/cleavage intersections, in outcrop view •  What would you look for, in the field, to distinguish transecting

cleavage from axial planar or fanning cleavage?

Images from the course textbook, Structural Geology, Haakon Fossen (2010), University Press

Examples from the Workbook

Examples from the Workbook

•  Misconception: Strain is (always) 2-dimensional

•  Exercise: Calculate the cross-sectional area of deformed layers at different stages of deformation. Is the area constant? Why or why not?

•  Students compare 2 sets of images: 2D and 3D strain Image from Dixon, John M. and Liu, Shumin, Centrifuge

modeling of the propagation of thrust faults, in Thrust Tectonics (Ken R. McClay, ed.), 1992

Examples from the Workbook

Examples from the Workbook

Examples from the Workbook

Examples from the Workbook

Examples from the Workbook

Outline

•  The problem

•  Our solution

•  Insights from cognitive science research

•  Curricular implementation in upper-division geology courses

•  Research questions and study design: evaluating our curricular materials

•  Data

•  Conclusions

Our Research Questions

•  Can curricular materials informed by cognitive science research boost students’ domain-general spatial thinking skills (their ability to perform abstract spatial tasks)?

•  Can these materials boost students’ domain-specific spatial thinking skills (their ability to reason about spatially complex geological concepts and problems)?

•  Will these gains be greater than the improvement we typically see over the course of a semester?

Classroom Study Design

Participants: •  Structural Geology at UW-Madison (N = 31; N = 34; N = 32) •  Mineralogy at Louisiana State University (N = 15; N =17; N = 26) •  Sedimentology & Stratigraphy at the University of St. Thomas (N = 18; N = 8)

All courses, all years: •  Administer pre- and post-tests of spatial thinking skills, focusing on mental

rotation and penetrative thinking (visualizing interiors) •  Document instructional strategies, materials •  Collect data from student performance on embedded assessments (e.g., exam

questions that require discipline-based spatial thinking) •  Collect student data from registrars (SAT/ACT scores, GPAs, course grade)

Timeline: •  2011-2012: Baseline year; no changes in instruction •  2012-2013: Pilot implementation; draft exercises in Mineralogy and Structure •  2013-2014: Full scale implementation in all 3 courses

Spatial Thinking Tests

a.  Mental rotation (MRT-A)

b.  Mental slicing: geometric solids (Planes of Reference)

c.  Slicing: minerals

d.  Slicing: geologic block diagrams

e.  Water level

Baseline data, Structural Geology, UW-Madison

N = 31

Spatial test scores, Structural Geology, baseline vs. implementation

Spatial test scores, Mineralogy, baseline vs. implementation

Spatial test scores, Sed/Strat, baseline vs. implementation

Our Research Questions

•  Can curricular materials informed by cognitive science research boost students’ domain-general spatial thinking skills (their ability to perform abstract spatial tasks)?

•  Can these materials boost students’ domain-specific spatial thinking skills (their ability to reason about spatially complex geological concepts and problems)?

•  Will these gains be greater than the improvement we typically see over the course of a semester?

Embedded assessments, Structural Geology, UW-Madison

What is it we want students to be able to DO after this course?

Embedded assessments, Structural Geology, UW-Madison

What is it we want students to be able to DO after this course?

Embedded assessments, Structural Geology, UW-Madison

What is it we want students to be able to DO after this course?

Embedded assessments, Structural Geology, UW-Madison

What is it we want students to be able to DO after this course?

Embedded assessment scores, UW-Madison Structure, baseline vs. implementation

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3 year 1 year 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Final Grade

Embedded Assessments

* * *

* *

Conclusions

•  We can boost students’ domain-specific spatial thinking skills, beyond the gains they would “normally” get from taking geoscience courses. While students’ domain-general spatial skills also show improvement, these gains are statistically the same as the gains we see in our baseline data.

•  Teaching spatial thinking in the context of discipline-based exercises has the potential to transform undergraduate STEM education by removing one significant barrier to success.

http://serc.carleton.edu/spatialworkbook/index.html

References

Gentner, D., and Markman, A.B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, v. 5, pp. 152-158.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Learning through gesture. WIREs (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews): Cognitive Science, v. 2, n. 6, pp. 595-607.

National Research Council (2006). Learning to think spatially—GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington DC: National Academies Press. 313 pp.

Sinton, D.S., Bednarz, S., Gersmehl, P., Kolvoord, R. and Uttal, D. (2013). The People’s Guide to Spatial Thinking: National Council for Geographic Education. 81 pp.

Sorby, S. (2009). Educational Research in Developing 3-D Spatial Skills for Engineering Students: International Journal of Science Education, v. 31, n. 3, pp. 459-480.

Uttal, D.H., Meadow, N.G., Tipton, E., Hand, L.L., Warren, C., and Newcombe, N.S. 2013. The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139:352-402.

Vandenberg, S.G., and Kuse, A.R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599 – 604.